pre-marx notion on capitalism

[sickle]

How did or would Marx respond to the notion that the pursuit of material gain through trade would create a network of dependencies, where people would have an interest in suppressing their more warlike tendencies?

[Questionable]

I'm pretty sure Marx would recognize that the bourgeois drive for profit would override any benefits of peace, thus sparking events such as World War I. I think he may of even touched the subject briefly if I can remember.

[Positivist]

Pursuit of material gain which is commonly accumulated through trade does not suppress the bourgiose interest for war because when it is easy enough (as it is when dealing with underedeveloped countries) than there can be greater material gain through military subjugation. This has been demonstrated by the history of imperialism.

[jookyle]

How did or would Marx respond to the notion that the pursuit of material gain through trade would create a network of dependencies, where people would have an interest in suppressing their more warlike tendencies?

Are you referring to dependency of the Bourgeoisie on material gains through trade, or the proletariats dependency of material goods through trade? Although, the two or interlocked.

[Jimmie Higgins]

How did or would Marx respond to the notion that the pursuit of material gain through trade would create a network of dependencies, where people would have an interest in suppressing their more warlike tendencies?

First Marxism doesn't agree with the assumption that people are inherently warlike anymore than they are inherently peaceful. Second, Marx described the ruling class as a warring band of brothers - so like feudalism where aristocrats fought aristocrats, in capitalism rich people fight other rich people - only in feudalism it was for control of land and serfs and now it's for control over resources and trade and the power to dictate these things. They are not "brothers" by family, but they are brothers in that they all want the same things and this both results in cooperation when faced with threats to their class position, but also competition within their class for dominance.

So rather than suppress war, trade leads to war. The relationship of the US and Japan before WWII is a good example - their economies were heavily intertwined right up until the war began. The relationship now between China and the US is another example, trade and dependencies are strong between the two, but so are imperial tensions and rivalries. At some point there may be a direct or indirect military conflict between the two because they both depend on and are held back by each other.

[The_Red_Spark]

I read somewhere that Germany's number one trading partner before WWII was France and that its number one trading partner after the war began in 1939 was the USSR right up until the Barbarossa invasion in 1941. The point the author was trying to make was that this relation was no guarantee against war but the opposite due to conflicting interests.